2017 - Digest - SpsEstrada V Phil Rabbit
2017 - Digest - SpsEstrada V Phil Rabbit
FACTS:
On April 9, 2002, a passenger bus owned by Philippine Rabbit Bus, Lines, Inc.
[PRBL] had a collision with another vehicle along the national highway in Barangay
Alipangpang, Pozorrubio, Pangasinan. Dionisio Estrada [Petitioner] was a passenger
of the said bus, and due to the accident, his right arm was amputated.
Petitioner sued PRBL and its driver Eduardo Saylan for damages before the
Regional Trial Court [RTC] of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan. Dionisio argued that
pursuant to the contract of carriage between him and Philippine Rabbit,
respondents were duty-bound to carry him safely as far as human care and foresight
can provide, with utmost diligence of a very cautious person, and with due regard
for all the circumstances from the point of his origin in Urdaneta City to his
destination in Pugo, La Union. However, through the fault and negligence of
Philippine Rabbit's driver, Eduardo, and without human care, foresight, and due
regard for all circumstances, respondents failed to transport him safely by reason of
the aforementioned collision, which resulted in the amputation of Dionisio's right
arm. And since demands for Philippine Rabbit to pay him damages for the injury he
sustained remained unheeded, Dionisio filed the said complaint wherein he prayed
for the following awards: moral damages of ₱500,000.00 actual damages of
₱60,000.00, and attorney's fees of ₱25,000.00.
Petitioner raised the issue before the SC, stating that their claim for moral
damages is based purely on the fact that Dionisio lost his right arm. They argue that
while in a strict sense, Dionisio incurred actual damages through the amputation of
his right arm, such loss may rightly be considered as falling under moral damages.
This is because a right arm is beyond the commerce of man and loss thereof
necessarily brings physical suffering, mental anguish, besmirched reputation, social
humiliation and similar injury to a person. At any rate, should this Court award the
amount of ₱500,000.00 as actual damages due to the loss of Dionisio's right arm,
petitioners also find the same proper and appropriate under the circumstances.
ISSUE:
Whether the petitioner’s claim of moral damages should be granted based on the
fact that the Dionisio lost his right arm by reason of the accident.
HELD:
Under Article 2219 of the Civil Code, moral damages are recoverable in the
following and analogous cases: (1) a criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) quasi-delicts causing physical injuries; (3) seduction, abduction, rape or other
lascivious acts; (4) adultery or concubinage; (5) illegal or arbitrary detention or
arrest; (6) illegal search; (7) libel, slander, or any other form of defamation; (8)
malicious prosecution; (9) acts mentioned in Article 309; and (1) acts and actions
referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.
Since breach of contract is not one of the items enumerated under Article
2219, moral damages, as a general rule, are not recoverable in actions for damages
predicated on breach of contract.
It has been held, however, that "allegations of bad faith and fraud must be
proved by clear and convincing evidence." They are never presumed considering
that they are serious accusations that can be so conveniently and casually invoked.
And unless convincingly substantiated by whoever is alleging them, they amount to
mere slogans or mudslinging.
In this case, the fraud or bad faith that must be convincingly proved by
petitioners should be one which was committed by Philippine Rabbit in breaching
its contract of carriage with Dionisio. Unfortunately for petitioners, the Court finds
no persuasive proof of such fraud or bad faith.
Bad faith, on the other hand, "does not simply connote bad judgment or
negligence; it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious
doing of a wrong, a breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill
will that partakes of the nature of fraud."
Still, petitioners insist that since the defenses it pleaded in its Answer were
designed to evade liability, Philippine Rabbit is guilty of fraud or bad faith. Suffice it
to state, however, that the allegations which made up Philippine Rabbit's defenses
are hardly the kind of fraud or bad faith contemplated by law. Again, it bears to
mention that the fraud or bad faith must be one which attended the contractual
breach or one which induced Dionisio to enter into contract in the first place.
Clearly, moral damages are not recoverable in this case. The CA, therefore, did
not err in deleting the award for moral damages.